PREP Tours Inc. v. American Youth Soccer Org.
913 F.3d 11
| 1st Cir. | 2019Background
- PREP Tours, a Puerto Rico tour company, sued California-based AYSO, its Region 24 chapter, and four California volunteer officers in federal court in Puerto Rico alleging (1) culpa in contrahendo (bad-faith precontractual negotiations) and (2) breach of contract arising from remote email/phone communications about a potential youth-soccer trip to Puerto Rico.
- Initial contact: Region 24 volunteer Ramírez emailed PREP Tours from California requesting a quote for ~60 players and families; PREP Tours sent a brochure and a "tentative rough draft" itinerary; intermittent emails, calls, and at least one text followed over ~4 months with defendants telling PREP Tours the inquiry was preliminary and that they were soliciting multiple bids.
- PREP Tours alleges it undertook planning efforts in Puerto Rico (itinerary revisions, hotel courtesy holds, coordination with a Florida travel agent) in reliance on defendants' requests; Region 24 ultimately chose a different (California) travel agency.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court applied the prima facie standard and dismissed without prejudice for lack of specific jurisdiction.
- The First Circuit affirmed, holding that PREP Tours failed to show defendants purposefully availed themselves of Puerto Rico's forum via the limited, preliminary remote contacts; the court assumed relatedness but found purposeful availment lacking and thus did not reach reasonableness or the long-arm statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Puerto Rico courts have specific personal jurisdiction over defendants based on remote emails/phone calls and PREP Tours' in‑forum work | PREP Tours: defendants solicited services, anticipated PREP Tours' in‑forum performance, and PREP Tours performed extensive in‑forum work—thus purposeful availment and relatedness are satisfied | Defendants: contacts were preliminary, unilateral, and made from California; any decisive acts (choosing a different vendor) occurred out of forum; unilateral forum activity by PREP Tours cannot confer jurisdiction | Held: Affirmed dismissal—even if relatedness exists, purposeful availment not shown given the preliminary, limited nature of defendants' contacts and lack of foreseeability of being haled into Puerto Rico court |
| Whether PREP Tours' in‑forum efforts (itinerary prep, alleged hotel holds, coordination) can be attributed to defendants for jurisdictional purposes | PREP Tours: its forum activities were foreseeable and undertaken at defendants' request, so they may be imputed to defendants | Defendants: PREP Tours' actions were largely unilateral responses to inquiries; record lacks allegations showing defendants asked PREP Tours to engage local providers or anticipated extensive forum work | Held: PREP Tours failed to document extensive in‑forum performance tied to defendants' requests; those activities do not establish purposeful availment |
| Applicability of Copia and similar remote‑communications precedent | PREP Tours: Copia factors (solicitation, anticipation, performance) weigh in its favor here because communications were targeted to a Puerto Rico specialist and led to substantial planning | Defendants: Copia and other precedents show that isolated or preliminary remote contacts are insufficient; this case is weaker than Copia and other cases favoring jurisdiction | Held: Majority treats Copia as controlling in framework and finds the contacts here weaker than in Copia (and far weaker than C.W. Downer / Cossart), so jurisdiction fails |
| Whether the court should resolve jurisdictional questions on prima facie record without an evidentiary hearing | PREP Tours: factual submissions suffice to require jurisdictional discovery/hearing | Defendants: record (affidavits + communications) shows no jurisdiction; no hearing necessary | Held: Court used prima facie standard, credited plaintiff's documentary proffers but found them insufficient; no hearing required given outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum contacts due process standard)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and foreseeability in specific jurisdiction analysis)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (foreseeability concept in jurisdictional analysis)
- Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., 436 U.S. 84 (contacts must make being haled into forum foreseeable)
- Copia Commc'ns, LLC v. Amresorts, LP, 812 F.3d 1 (First Circuit framework for remote‑communications cases: solicitation, anticipation, performance)
- C.W. Downer & Co. v. Bioriginal Food & Sci. Corp., 771 F.3d 59 (imputed in‑forum performance supported jurisdiction where defendant engaged in ongoing relationship)
- Cossart v. United Excel Corp., 804 F.3d 13 (ongoing employer‑employee contacts supported jurisdictional analysis)
- Boit v. Gar-Tec Prods., Inc., 967 F.2d 671 (prima facie standard for jurisdictional factual showing)
- Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42 (claim-by-claim, fact-specific relatedness and purposeful availment analysis)
- Adelson v. Hananel, 652 F.3d 75 (relatedness/foreseeability considerations in specific jurisdiction analysis)